I never got a chance to talk about the death of the Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. He was killed in Turkey, and the Turkish government, along with other sources, provided evidence showing that the journalist was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. He was beheaded and fully dismembered, after he was interrogated and tortured in ways that only the Muslim faithful are capable of.
The story has become added yet another factor regarding the ongoing question about whether or not we should continue to treat the Saudis as if they are the good Muslims, while considering ISIS and Iran the bad Muslims. In the end, the evidence is pretty firm that any people who fully adhere to the teachings of Islam (Sunni, Shiite, or other) are potentially dangerous, murderous, and capable of unspeakable acts of terror that no (or perhaps we should say “few”) Westerners are capable of. Therefore, we should not be schmoozing with the Saudis like we do. While they act like they are an opposite side of a coin from Iran, in truth, in many ways there is little difference between the two.
We tippy-toe around the issue because we have been indoctrinated into believing that Islam should be handled with kid’s gloves. We want desperately to believe that it is not true that anyone who believes in the Koran’s text is capable of being a blood-thirsty jihadist. Even President Donald Trump, who normally has no problem speaking his mind regarding things, said that while he considered Khashoggi’s murder “a terrible thing,” he stopped short of assigning blame.
Whatever spell the followers of the false prophet of Muhammad has on the liberal left, Saudi Arabia has a more powerful spell cast over the entirety of the Western World.
“We’re looking at it very strongly,” Trump said. “We’ll be having a report out soon. We’re working with Turkey, we’re working with Saudi Arabia. What happened is a terrible thing, assuming that happened. I mean, maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised, but somehow I tend to doubt it.”
I get it. In politics it is more often than not necessary to proceed on the side of caution. You don’t want to blurt out that something is true, and then be lambasted by it later because you were wrong. That kind of thing ruins political careers, and is the stuff that scandals are made of. However, when it comes to the Muslims, we over do it, and we do so because for some reason as a society we believe them when they say that their demonic ways are only the workings of a radical few.
Islam has shown time and time again its willingness to slaughter anyone and everyone that even looks cockeyed at them. They kill within, and without. It’s like Nazism on steroids. Yet, we are careful not to say anything that might seem as a criticism of the political system that masks as a religion.
Why? Because they told us not to criticize them? If we are afraid of violent repercussions from Islam if we dare say anything that might tick them off, is that not evidence enough to admit they are not the religion of peace they claim to be?
Khashoggi is dead and not only is Saudi Arabia to blame, so is Islam. This kind of senseless violent madness is what Islam does, no matter what they say or how many times they lie to us about it.
Instead of Religion of Peace, the label for Islam should be the Religion of Violence and the Religion of Deception.
Shouldn’t the Washington Post, after all of its leftist reporting, which began shortly after it rightly was a strong critic of FDR’s New Deal (or should we say, “Raw Deal”) see the light and realize the truth when suddenly one of their own has been slaughtered in such a way by a group of Islamic followers who claim to be members of the friendlies (Saudi Arabia)?
The problem is that the Washington Post is so deep into its leftwing radical despotism that even with a situation like the killing of Khashoggi that should have forced the organization to have its eyes wide open, the people in her offices still refuse to see the truth.